Time Blames Bush For Gaza

Scott McLeod is Time's Middle East go-to guy.  He's also a Bush hating moonbat, but then you probably knew that since he works for Time.  He wrote a piece explaining why the current battle in Gaza is W's fault.  Essentially, he tries to blame Bush for not correcting a centuries old fight.  Herewith is the heart of Mr. McLeod's rant.

The U.S. has the indispensable role to play in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But after spending most of its two terms walking away from negotiations and aimlessly supporting unilateral moves by Israeli hard-liners, the huge death tolls and continuing bloodshed are not the only results of the mismanagement of America's role. Israeli and Palestinian politics have become more severely fragmented, making it more difficult to find leaders who can make necessary and courageous decisions and make them stick for peace. The latest unspeakable round of killing is as much about the factional jockeying for power as it is about anything else--it's surely not about liberating Palestine or winning the war on terrorism, is it?

If there's anything good to come out of it, perhaps it's that the fighting on the eve of Barack Obama's inauguration as the next American president will further concentrate his mind on the need to get serious about U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East. A year ago, Bush convened the Annapolis peace conference in a clumsy, last-ditch effort to correct the mistake he made by abandoning U.S. mediation for nearly seven years. He optimistically predicted the parties would reach some kind of an agreement before he left office in January 2009. What happened instead? His legacy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the scene of dead and wounded on the streets of Gaza.

Like every President before him, Bush tried to bring them to the peace table and like every President before him, he failed to bring about any kind of real peace.  He doesn't mention the fact that Clinton was not exactly successful in his eight years.  Perhaps President Bush understands what people like McLeod either can't or won't understand:  Hamas and their ilk do not want peace.

Sadly, Mr. McLeod doesn't tell us what Mr. Bush needed to say or do.  What magical thing could Bush say to the Palestinians and the Israelis that would bring about lasting peace in the region?  Hamas is a terrorist organization, dedicated in their quest to destroy the Israeli state and annihilate the Jews.  What do you say to them to make them accept Israel's right to exist?  He just says Bush didn't do the job.   If it is just sitting down at the table and talking, what should Bush (or any President for that matter) propose that would leave both sides feeling they came away from the bargaining table with a bargain?

I guarantee you that Barack Obama will not be able to hammer out any kind of lasting peace accord either. Hamas, and their Islamist allies are intractable in their determination to destroy Israel and Mr. Obama will not be able to negotiate that kind of hatred away.

VW

Comments

[Leora]

Of the presidents, Bush was actually one of the best supporters of Israel that we've had (others being Reagan and Truman). While Condi Rice may not have understood the situation, recently Bush said to Olmert (who is NOT one of Israel's best supporters, even though he is still the figurative leader), why are trying to give away the Golan for nothing?

Hamas and Hamas alone is to blame for spending their money on weapons instead of education and hospitals. Oh, they do spend it on education: the kind that trains kindergarteners to be suicide bombers.

Thank you again for your support.

[Bloviating Zeppelin]

Uh, okay, so here's Obama's Solution to Israel: abandon them. Cheap. Easy.

BZ